1993 PLP 1288 (CLC)

3.???????? Miss Shamin Siddiqi???????????????????????????????????????? 1/16???????????????????????????????????????? ? 4.???????? Mrs. Razia Sultana??????????????????????????????????????????? 1/16???????????????????????????????????????? ? 5.???????? Mrs. Safia Sultana??????????????????????????????????????????? 1/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 6.???????? Mr. Zaheeruddin Siddiqi?????????????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 7.???????? Mr. Masood Pervez Siddiqi????????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 8.???????? Mr. Mahmood Pervez Siddiqi?????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 9.???????? Mr. Saleem Pervez Siddiqi??????????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 10.?????? Mr. Mazhar Ahmad Siddiqi????????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 11.?????? Mst. Zohra Bi?????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1/18???????????????????????????????????????? " 12.?????? Mst. Kubra Begum?????????????????????????????????????????? 1/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 13.?????? Bashiruddin Ahmad????????????????????????????????????????? 2/16???????????????????????????????????????? " 14.?????? Mrs. Fahmida Khalique??????????????????????????????????? 1/16???????????????????????????????????????? " The only modification to the above shares will be that the newly joined defendants Nos.10‑A to 10‑K will now become entitled to 1/8th share of Mst. Zuhra Bi who had expired on 29‑9‑1991. The parties however, are at dispute with regard to properties left by the deceased as the plaintiff claims that the plot on which the residential house was constructed and the plot on which the commercial factory was constructed. though purchased in the name of her deceased mother Zafar Sultana, remained the property of the deceased and therefore, divisible amongst his heirs. This position is not denied by the other defendants except defendants 6 and 8 who contend that the said properties belonged to their late mother namely Zafar Sultana and it was these two defendants who raised the Modern Business of manufacture and supply of medicines. It may be observed that the purpose of a suit of administration is to administer the assets and properties left by the deceased under the decree of the Court and distribute the same amongst the heirs or persons entitled to the same. From the above facts and admissions given by the parties it is an admitted position that the deceased had 3 wives of whom .2 had died during his life time. The present plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 9 are the children of the deceased from his first pre?deceased wife while defendants Nos.11 to 13 are the children of the deceased from his 2nd predeceased wife whereas defendant No.10 was the surviving widow from whom the deceased did not have any child. Under these circumstances the learned Advocates for the parties and all others present do not dispute the shares of the parties to which they would be entitled from the assets and the properties left by the deceased at the time of his death. Accordingly I hold parties to the suit to be entitled to their respective shares as mentioned above. The other question that requires determination is its to what were the properties owned by the deceased at the time of his death. This can best be done by appointing a Commissioner who may record evidence of the parties in this respect. Accordingly the present suit for administration is decreed and the Official Assignee is appointed as Commissioner who will allow the parties to lead their evidence in respect of the following issues which are referred to him:‑‑ (1) What were the properties left by the deceased at the time of his death and who is in occupation or possession thereof? (2) What would be the value of the properties left by the deceased and the products manufactured and marked from the said factory? (3) The Commissioner will take accounts of all properties since the death of the deceased till date. The Commissioner will make efforts for finalisation of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of this order. Before parting with the case it may be observed that Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the defendants Nos.6 and 8, has submitted that under an earlier order of the Court the said defendants had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000 in Court and has requested that this amount may be invested. Accordingly it is ordered that the said amount be invested in some profit‑earning scheme. The parties will bear their own costs. H.B.T./R‑203/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suit decreed.